On 4 April 2014 20:45, Ben Reser <b...@reser.org> wrote: > > On 4/4/14, 5:02 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: [...]
> > My opinion on Subversion 1.9.0 is the following: release Subversion > > 1.9.0 ASAP without FSFS format change. We have many FSFS performance > > improvements in trunk that doesn't require format change. > > > > I think that cost of maintaining disk format backward compatibility > > and code destabilization doesn't worth the real benefits that users > > get from fsfs7 performance improvements. On the other side: if > > log-addressing and related stuff are so cool and rock-solid, users > > always can switch to FSX and fully benefit from this new stuff. > > I guess all I can say is that I wish we'd had this discussion completely in > November and resolved it. I'd like to see 1.9.0 in June (or earlier) but I > don't know how realistic that is now that you want us to rip out significant > amounts of work. > > Unfortunately though, none of this discussion helps with the issue at hand. > What exactly do we need to do to make you happy with a 1.9.0-alpha release? > Is > there anything we can do? Is removing the format 7 code enough? Or if that > was removed would you still be against it since you don't think it's useful? > > Bottom line, what do you want to do here? Here are my thoughts. I have the following concerns about the log addressing feature: 1. Data corruption is possible due to implementation bugs. We have had a lot of bugs in revprop packing feature and I expect at least the same amount of bugs in this feature. We are unable to identify these bugs before the release due to obvious limitations of alpha and beta testing. We haven't implemented the improved testing discussed in [1]. And overall quality of feature design and implementation seems far from perfect. 2. Despite the possible bugs, maintenance burden will be increased significatly. We are introducing additional FSFS format that dramatically increase the code complexity. And we have a big code duplication because this feature is actually copy-pasted from FSX format. 3. I am not sure that the log adressing feature in the current desing and implementaion is really valuable for users. On the other side, we have the FSX format that is treated as experimental. The much better way is to release log adressing feature in this new format and see how it works in production (not during the alpha/beta testing). These are my thoughts about the log adressing feature itself. Assuming all of this I don't like the idea to release 1.9 alpha with this feature. It will be easy to make an implicit decision for final release "because we don't have any bug reports from alpha and beta testers". I propose to revert *all* the FSFS format changes (including the svn_fs_move support) and then release the 1.9 alpha ASAP. I agree that there are many other fixes and usefull improvements waiting for release. As far as I can tell, the svn_fs_move() is never called (quite surprising). Moreover, I'm unable to find any unit tests for svn_fs_move(). So it's not worth to change the repository format for non-used feature. P.S. The whole situation reminds me the release of ra_serf in Subversion 1.7 :) [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201311.mbox/%3CCABw-3YdV1YX0yU3cuWD8syPGpQxkLBUe=6h_bmkubfa+vqf...@mail.gmail.com%3E -- Ivan Zhakov CTO | VisualSVN | http://www.visualsvn.com
